New Socionics Theory: four clubs per quadra

[717495]

I'll quickly explain the premise. I know a number of us here are into Socionics as it is, though I was thinking of a clearer categorization for people, that deals with the fact that all four types within a quadra have the same values and get along the best, but all four come from different sets of strengths: namely the reknown NT, NF, ST and SF stereotypical clubs that I think many of us see a clear delineation in. Ie. in theory there would no longer be two types of NTs, but four types of NTs, + four types of NFs, four types of STs, and four types of SFs, and they each differ in emphasis and cognition and each value things more similar to their quadra, each according member of the other three clubs. If you're NT you still have their behavior and strength overall, you just aren't typical "NT" anymore and you belong to your own unique subclass of NT. Or your own unique subclass of NF, etc.

This idea would seem to fit people in real life pretty well, and if we were to have a good set of descriptions per each "club" and each "quadra" then we could make further observations about the four different club members, and each different quadra member. This theory revolves around the realization that you have values in common with people of all four clubs, and given the correct outlook as to what those values are, these ideas may be implemented closer to the 16 types as they are, but more than that, they can seriously be taken to form something twice as intricate about personality types than what we know now, and all from the same mental practices we're familiar with.

The organization of it would look like this: (without necessarily the old quadra names, but quadras that fit nonetheless)

[Aiss]

Researchers have fugly shades, therefore I disapprove.

There's an NT Beta type, therefore I approve.

Result: fatal error at 233530q2z8¨™9u9™ľż¨ī†ľ™•€ßľĽ™Ń¨€ľĽ™

[717495]

Instead of necessarily saying there's already an NT Beta type, which leads one to think of where there is an NT Delta type, etc, perhaps the best way to construct this is to look at NT types as a whole, and from there begin to acknowledge four various subclasses of NTs we may begin to clarify. The quadra emphasis comes after the fact of making these observations along with some usual quadra observations, but there is twice as much room now to allow for more conceptualization besides the 8 information elements alone. One must think ie. if one were a subclass of NT, wouldn't one's ego functions differ to some extent from the other three?

[717495]

Also I bring this up here instead of say an MBTI forum, because as much as we have a model already, there are plenty of open-minded people who believe in the finer distinctions of what quadra values could emphasize in theory. The advantage of using any forum to construct some observations is that everyone makes these observations already, that within a club of NT types, as well as the other clubs, it often seems like there are more than two value-sets going on, and one cannot expect to relate well to half of the people in their club than they can as much one-fourth of them. The "quadra" emphasis needs not to be as obvious as the differentiation within each club, but only be an after affect which appears to place four type values in alignment. So perhaps noting the stark color difference within each club is the most important aspect of the graph.

[InkStrider]

Interesting. I would call myself an NT Delta ST under this system.

[717495]

There are four main Socionics and MBTI dichotomies. Two of these, N/S and T/F, when combined form one of the two "four-preference" dichotomies used in this theory called the "club" (the other being "quadra.") Here are some possible short-descriptions of the four clubs (taken from an old test):

The Pragmatist (ST) - His focus is on productivity, function, achievement, efficiency, effecting change, building, engineering, business, and/or acquiring power. He's pragmatic and seeks to improve his individual position.
Pragmatists (STs) share more in common with Researchers (NTs) and Socials (SFs) and have the least common with Humanitarians (NFs).

The Social (SF) - He cares about people, making connections with them, and interpersonal interactions. He often enjoys hosting and going to parties, gossip, familial interaction, and other types of activities that value or emphasize socialization.
Socials (SFs) share more in common with Humanitarians (NFs) and Pragmatists (STs) and have the least in common with Researchers (NTs).

The Humanitarian (NF) - His focus is on the greater societal needs and problems; often has interests in philosophy, art, psychology, sociology, and/or politics. He's humanitarian and seeks to improve society.
Humanitarians (NFs) share more in common with Socials (SFs) and Researchers (NTs) and have the least in common with Pragmatists (STs).

The Researcher (NT) - His focus is on researching areas of interest. He often puts much thought and time into an area of interest, finding information on the topic, making conclusions and deductions, and then presenting these plans, hypothesis, theories, and predictions. He values understanding and knowledge with less emphasis on either his personal benefit or society's.
Researchers (NTs) share more in common with Pragmatists (STs) and Humanitarians (NFs) and have the least in common with Socials (SFs).


As far as what quadras can divide these further up, even at their individual level, is still in question, though it may easily be the quadras described within Socionics.

[krieger]

the whole point of a theory like socionics is to express the limits to the extent to which personality traits can occur in combination..... you can't improve the theory by breaking down such boundaries. what you'll end up with is just an incoherent word salad with no concrete implications like the enneagram.

[717495]

Socionics implies that there are only two types of NTs, and when they differ in extroversion and introversion, they have some differences but are still closest to one another due to values, and the opposite quadra is unlike them. What is there to say, being open-minded, that there are not four NTs with their own dual that are all relative to one another? ie. xNTx 1 is similar to xNTx 2 is similar to xNTx 3 is similar to xNTx 4 is similar to xNTx 1, where one type is unique as the others, and on the side maybe has more E tendencies on average, just like Ns have more P tendencies on average; its just normative correlation. There is no explanation not to branch out to look at more differences, because you learn Socionics in a set way that has its limitations, and others of the next generation can come in and easily learn a clearer and more attractive classification that has the same amount of variables and efficiency.

For instance, you call me an ILI, but I relate a lot more to Alpha NT descriptions, but apparently we're not the same type. So is your idea based around the fact that we're not the same type or is it that we value different things? I can see four kinds of NTs that seem similar in some aspects but different in others. There is no limitation really, besides your own mind, but it is healthy to branch out in steps and look at four types instead of two, now.

[krieger]

i don't have an opinion on your type. what i'm telling you is every step you take toward relieving the theory of it's limitations is a step towards not having a theory at all. that is all.

[Creepy-female]

Your idea is very new and interesting, the graphs are visually appealing (well, the researcher shades do look like puke, Aiss, in all seriousness it doesn't matter) and easy to read. The problem I run into when thinking about these new divisions is that, clubs are attributed to certain quadras and not others for a reason, that is, the nature of the club speaks about the nature of the quadra as a whole.

Beta and Delta NFs are alike in that both ego functions are internal [(Ni + Fe) and (Ne + Fi)]
Beta and Delta STs are alike in that both ego functions are external [(Se + Ti) and (Si + Te)]
Alpha and Gamma SFs are alike in that the ego functions are split internal/external [(Si + Fe) and (Se +Fi)]
Alpha and Gamma NTs are alike in that the ego functions are split internal/external [(Ne + Ti) and (Ni + Te)]

Beta and Delta NFs are alike in that the ego functions are split involved/abstract
Beta and Delta STs are alike in that the ego functions are split involved/abstract
Alpha and Gamma SFs are alike in that both ego functions are involved
Alpha and Gamma NTs are alike in that both ego functions are abstract (making NTs the sexiest type)

I am sorry if this is all redundant to you, but it's my understanding of why clubs are useful and at what point their attributes and viewpoints become specific to quadra. I feel that your proposition, while interesting, is unnecessary.

[717495]

Labocat, I'll respect your viewpoint generally, but on the other side of it, even the easiest way is not necessarily the simplest way. It's easy to say all people are the human personality type, but it is fairly difficult to always account for our most valued differences. There already exists an obvious problem like this with various types, and to keep it over-simplified doesn't solve the problem. In the EII sphere for instance holds some outcasts who don't identify with each other or the type description, then going over to IEI you see the problem vastly erupt as in saying there are too many IEIs and they don't fit within other types. The same goes for LII and ILI, and it's difficult to clear it up one way, by really thinking how you're going to accurately type people within a broken system and claim its better and more accurate, because the facts speak for themselves. I think the dichotomies like I/E and P/J aren't that necessary and will distract us from 16 equal but different types with their own relative positions. And there should also an absence of a model which allows us to gain more information. You can't go wrong with quality-controlling the current dichotomies and getting rid of them if unneeded. This goes even for the quadra and information element descriptions to an extent.

[munenori2]

I think my problem with all this is that while I get that all types in a club are different, the way you're delineating them says they are equally different, or that the only real commonality they share between each other is whatever characteristics adhere to being an NT or an SF, etc. Basically this is just rejecting the current hypothesis that the types in the club can be paired according to more-likeness vs less-likeness, which is fine from an analytical standpoint, but the addition of quadras into the picture, the way you've painted it here that each type seems to be correlated to individual quadras to account for their extra-club characteristics...I'm not sure what justification you would have to assert this beyond mere thought experimentation. Further, it has other complications with aspects of the theory which provide reasoning for the current club/quadra associations as well as those that hinge upon the system as it stands, such as intertype relations. What's less clear to me is that it seems to compound the type problem imo since it would seem to allow for sixteen types in each quadra (xNTb indicating an NT of any temperament who matches quadra values or descriptions or whatever mechanism you're proposing). It would also essentially call for disposing of model A as it stands.

[DividedsGhost]

Typing people is a disease. There are no objective criteria for anyone to have a discussion on, except for stating an opinion and bigotry; and without objective criteria none of this holds in objective reality, but only in the subjective mind. Get out while you can, Poli. Don't let this crap consume you too. I'm ashamed.

[717495]

Mune, all of Socionics is experimentation and like divided said can hold in the subjective mind in a number of ways. Socionics makes the same categorizations as I propose and isn't very different, this newer way is just quality-control when you get down to it. However I'm not sure what you mean by types not fitting with other types. The purpose is to look at a quadra in each variable. Four seems to be the magic number, and so there are easily four different types within a quadra as much as there are for quadras of people, or whatever number you need for your categorization. You can continue to make assumptions and find evidence; experimentation is the mark of scientist. There is no hard evidence to say that two of these have to be in the same club, actually this just limits the quadra and its different types of relations. Of course I think SFs are more interesting and may have a better relationship with them than STs, per some kind of duality, yet I am still aware that there are many kinds of SFs, some more similar than one other, and some more different. Why should we go on to say, for instance, that ESFps and ISFjs are so similar to one another value-wise, when we emphasize them so differently? Socionics has always had problems, so going against it in little bits is smart. Doesn't matter how you do it, just start somewhere and eventually evolve. What's the pain in just saying the other related SFs might be closer to duality than the STs in the quadra?

[InkStrider]

Typing people is a disease. There are no objective criteria for anyone to have a discussion on, except for stating an opinion and bigotry; and without objective criteria none of this holds in objective reality, but only in the subjective mind. Get out while you can, Poli. Don't let this crap consume you too. I'm ashamed.

I agree on this. Typing can be fun when not taken seriously, but to get too deeply into it consumes you and has the potential to turn us into beings we could hardly recognize. It's lost months or even years better spent after more meaningful and fruitful pursuits, or in simply living and experiencing life instead of within the trappings of our own minds.

[munenori2]

Yes, but what the groupings in socionics seem to be based on is following the implications of basic premises. What's built on top of those premises isn't wholly an arbitrary exercise. It's true you can argue with the most primordial claims socionics makes (that there are 8 basic forms of information available to human perception and cognition, which itself is derived from Jungian concepts like the introversion/extraversion, field/object, and dynamism of a process, that a human being needs to access each of these on some level in order to best survive, and that they do so with differing capability) or you can dispute the leap from there to constructing a model that satisfies these assumptions (model A) in line with the observations Jung made (that there are different types of people who primarily operate according to specific modes of cognition). If you're going to simply draw from this system certain notions, such as club, or quadra, you still have to enumerate the assumptions or bases which lead you to conclude as you do. It's not just '4 sounds like a good number' or 'let's just split the clubs up like so', but they are implicit in the prior aspects of the system they are appendages of.

What I'm saying is if you're going to pick and choose what you like, you're going to have to construct a new theory from the bare bones, and that means beginning from the bottom, starting from what appears most certain, and explaining how the parts of your theory got there in the first place.

[717495]

The observations of Jung's types aren't entirely healthy to assume as a premise for relationships. He goes to subjectively define some classifications and now we assume there is some kind of ingrained quadra-relation there because people relate to it? Newsflash: it's just another theory with followers who write contradictory ideas, and nobody relates completely to their type or quadra, which is why you need to keep branching out to continue to gain a more encompassing picture through discussion. There is no hard-evidence to assume there are 16 types, like I just explained. So whether the number is four or ninety seven, you have to be able to accept it and run ideas through your mind, or else you don't belong in a psychology thread like this, where the idea is to talk about such possibilities from our experiences. Isn't this fundamental psychological science stuff?

The fact of the matter is there already exists a basic premise here. The idea of club is in agreement to be a significant factor in personality and what we usually base our typings on. So some people originally typed ENFp, but then changed to ENFj, then INFp. At least they were sure of this one aspect of being a humanitarian (NF). So we don't just stop there, but we look at the differences between these, which is all I'm asking. There are not just two kinds of NFs, obviously. The E/I factor has helped us a bit to alleviate some of these differences, but is only a temporary fix.

It is weird how some people treat Socionics as such truth or gimmick and not just a theory.

[munenori2]

It's truth value is irrelevant to the discussion of how parts of it are arrived at. It's very basic premises could all be wrong and the rest of it would still be logical outgrowths of its origins. Neither is it a matter of the general level of agreement over what constitutes the basic premise you're building on. Clubs, as useful as they may be to you, aren't necessarily so for others. Some people might find temperament to be a more reliable and constant aspect of human personality than club.

What I am getting at is the general characteristics of forming an internally consistent theory. You're entirely welcome to construct whatever personal theory you want. My query was more trying to get at the specific claims of socionics as it is commonly understood you still would say you believe to be true and which specific claims you disagree with. If you can do this, and relate how this leads to and supports your observations, then I would find it a hell of a lot easier to understand what you're saying and regard it as more than, "Well, what if x, it sounds good to me and fits my subjective experience and a lot of people would agree with some of what I say."

There's no particular need for me to even assert that I think the basic claims (as I've briefly outlined my understanding of them) are true, although I happen to do so. I could be completely wrong and you could have, just today, stumbled upon the Total Truth of Personality Typology, but if you can't adequately explain the logic of at least some of your ideas, you may want to consider that you're just spouting a bunch of random stuff that seems cool to you even if it feels right.

Sure, I know that it might feel like I'm trying to make you feel bad or stupid if you can't do so off the cuff, but another more positive way to look at it would be that it's precisely because I'm taking you seriously that I'm willing or interested in challenging your ideas or giving them added structure.

[717495]

Your idea is very new and interesting, the graphs are visually appealing (well, the researcher shades do look like puke, Aiss, in all seriousness it doesn't matter) and easy to read. The problem I run into when thinking about these new divisions is that, clubs are attributed to certain quadras and not others for a reason, that is, the nature of the club speaks about the nature of the quadra as a whole.

Beta and Delta NFs are alike in that both ego functions are internal [(Ni + Fe) and (Ne + Fi)]
Beta and Delta STs are alike in that both ego functions are external [(Se + Ti) and (Si + Te)]
Alpha and Gamma SFs are alike in that the ego functions are split internal/external [(Si + Fe) and (Se +Fi)]
Alpha and Gamma NTs are alike in that the ego functions are split internal/external [(Ne + Ti) and (Ni + Te)]

Beta and Delta NFs are alike in that the ego functions are split involved/abstract
Beta and Delta STs are alike in that the ego functions are split involved/abstract
Alpha and Gamma SFs are alike in that both ego functions are involved
Alpha and Gamma NTs are alike in that both ego functions are abstract (making NTs the sexiest type)

I am sorry if this is all redundant to you, but it's my understanding of why clubs are useful and at what point their attributes and viewpoints become specific to quadra. I feel that your proposition, while interesting, is unnecessary.

Very good. I like your ideas and concerns, they are meant to clarify. These deal with classical Socionics. With improvements there is easily imagineable something of a similar style to help us model how we see types, and even as we do now (ie. there are people of Ni + Ti, yet somehow we don't think of NT ) As in normo-socionics there are two functions for each realm of cognition.

Draft of choices for our ego cognition (think of Ne vs Ni for now)
n1 = intuition style 1 vs n2 = intuition style 2
s1 = sensing style 1 vs s2 = sensing style 2
t1 = thinking style 1 vs t2 = thinking style 2
f1 = feeling style 1 vs f2 = feeling style 2

Here you see how the valued functions match up from each given type to the rest of their quadra.



There are two equal ego functions. Here you see the emphasis on subtype.



These are just frameworks. Augusta created and experimented with them like I do, and gave her observations with colleagues.

Some people might find temperament to be a more reliable and constant aspect of human personality than club.

Not usually.

What I am getting at is the general characteristics of forming an internally consistent theory. You're entirely welcome to construct whatever personal theory you want. My query was more trying to get at the specific claims of socionics as it is commonly understood you still would say you believe to be true and which specific claims you disagree with. If you can do this, and relate how this leads to and supports your observations, then I would find it a hell of a lot easier to understand what you're saying and regard it as more than, "Well, what if x, it sounds good to me and fits my subjective experience and a lot of people would agree with some of what I say."

There's no particular need for me to even assert that I think the basic claims (as I've briefly outlined my understanding of them) are true, although I happen to do so. I could be completely wrong and you could have, just today, stumbled upon the Total Truth of Personality Typology, but if you can't adequately explain the logic of at least some of your ideas, you may want to consider that you're just spouting a bunch of random stuff that seems cool to you even if it feels right.

Sure, I know that it might feel like I'm trying to make you feel bad or stupid if you can't do so off the cuff, but another more positive way to look at it would be that it's precisely because I'm taking you seriously that I'm willing or interested in challenging your ideas or giving them added structure.

I'm not here to sell anything. This part of the forum is free to come and go, and is for developing some more coherent ideas from the patterns we see. I won't defend my ideas for the sake of certainty so you're free to keep commenting.

[717495]

Possible nomenclature for our temporary Socionics status:
The easiest to grasp nomenclature are our common groupings of the two strongest functions (ie. NeFi, NiTi)
I will specify one more fairly simple kind.
Each line is a type.
The order of the two functions does not matter but subtype may easily affect extroversion/introversion levels.
Likewise a type with two introverted functions may be considered the most introverted, or a type with two extroverted functions, the most extroverted.
Nonetheless here we don't measure I/E as much, we focus on getting a fuller picture of the person's cognition.

Alpha
TiNe - ANTP (Ne sub), ANTJ (Ti sub)
FeNe - ANFP (Ne sub), ANFJ (Fe sub)
TiSi - ASTP (Si sub), ASTJ (Ti sub)
FeSi - ASFP (Si sub), ASFJ (Fe sub)

Beta
TiNi - BNTP (Ni sub), BNTJ (Ti sub)
FeNi - BNFP (Ni sub), BNFJ (Fe sub)
TiSe - BSTP (Se sub), BSTJ (Ti sub)
FeSe - BSFP (Se sub), BSFJ (Fe sub)

Gamma
TeNi - GNTP (Ni sub), GNTJ (Te sub)
FiNi - GNFP (Ni sub), GNFJ (Fi sub)
TeSe - GSTP (Se sub), GSTJ (Te sub)
FiSe - GSFP (Se sub), GSFJ (Fi sub)

Delta
TeNe - DNTP (Ne sub), DNTJ (Te sub)
FiNe - DNFP (Ne sub), DNFJ (Fi sub)
TeSi - DSTP (Si sub), DSTJ (Te sub)
FiSi - DSFP (Si sub), DSFJ (Fi sub)

To get the dual's arrangement, you just switch the club. ie BNTP ~ BSFP / NiTi ~ SeFe

This nomenclature isn't necessary for most people, but I think it could be useful.

[munenori2]

I'm not here to sell anything. This part of the forum is free to come and go, and is for developing some more coherent ideas from the patterns we see. I won't defend my ideas for the sake of certainty so you're free to keep commenting.

alkdjfskoefjwekfjsdklfjsdlk

How you could ever see us as the same type makes no sense to me.

[MisterNi]

It's rather interesting but you'd need to build it up sufficiently in order to fully legitimatize it. Otherwise, you'll likely have to package your views as being something separate than Modal A.

[FDG]

Perhaps I'm stupid, but I still haven't understood how would this classification work...like there is one type for each quadra that is more-like a given club? Idk, it seems like it'd break the whole theory down. For example, it's completely incompatible with reinin dichtomies.

[mu4]

This idea totally breaks Aristocratic/democratic dichotomy, and is broken in quite a few other ways vs socionic theory.

It's a system of categorizations, but you can't use socionic terminology with it because that is incoherent.

Aristocratic quadras and democratic quadras are quite important in socionics and their characteristics are that.

NF/ST in Aristocratic quadras.
NT/SF in Democratic quadras.

In socionic theory the clubs don't exist in all the quadras.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, but it is outside socionic theory, and couldn't be reconciled with it. It's going to be extremely confusing to try and analyze or understand this based on socionic terminology.

In socionics, the clubs work based on temperament. 4 clubs per temperament.

[717495]

Oh I forgot that Reinin dichotomies made sense.

[Nico1e]

Researchers have fugly shades, therefore I disapprove.

There's an NT Beta type, therefore I approve.

Result: fatal error at 233530q2z8¨™9u9™ľż¨ī†ľ™•€ßľĽ™Ń¨€ľĽ™

Me too. And also not. I like the whole group of colors together. As for the actual content of the idea, I will require more thinking about it.

I've noticed big differences in the duals that I have talked to in real life. I've also noticed that I don't like a lot of them. For instance, I've met ENFPs who slightly irritate me or don't understand me, because they seem to be very fun-having-oriented, and I myself am very serious, but they still call themselves ENFP and they do still use intuition. If somebody wants to explain that there are differences among them - and not just say 'It's the Ne subtype or the Fi subtype' - and not just say it's their enneagram type or their Ichazo's instinctual subtype, but rather, a whole different type - then that's okay with me, I'd be interested in looking at the idea.

As soon as I saw people talking about +Si and -Si, I realized there could be more combinations than we have now (unless some part of the theory restricts that from happening, and I haven't read enough of it yet to really know), not just 32 types (which I said originally) but 64 types (if you allow two positives or two negatives instead of alternating).

It wouldn't necessarily have to use the pluses and minuses, it could be whatever works for you in what you're trying to explain, because I don't know all of what you're seeing in your mind, and it's probably more complicated than what you've written here. I only know that what we have right now, Model A or whatever, isn't the 'end' of socionics or personality systems in general - that more people have more systems and models to develop in the future and it isn't 'done' yet.

[Nico1e]

Oh I forgot that Reinin dichotomies made sense.

You could reject the Reinin dichotomies, temporarily. I don't use them, myself. Supposedly they were 'derived from' the other parts of the theory, but they weren't an original part of Model A - they were added on later by a different person. You'd have a different system with different dichotomies. People got the Reinin dichotomies by 'moving the pieces around' mathematically. I don't know the details of how it was done. It depends on how much you want to do this.

[Absurd]

About time, where do I sign to get a club?

[EyeSeeCold]

@OP

Not sure I understand.

Isn't creating a unique subclass of a club superfluous? The only way it wouldn't be is if more than one type fits into the subclass, and I can't tell if that's the situation.

[717495]

@OP

Not sure I understand.

Isn't creating a unique subclass of a club superfluous? The only way it wouldn't be is if more than one type fits into the subclass, and I can't tell if that's the situation.

No why would more than one type fit into a subclass? that would be more than 16 types. We already have, for instance, Beta NT (basically NiTi or TiNi) as one type in the quadra, I'm sure there are some here, yet the problem exists that there are too many within these types, "IEI" for instance, who differ in many ways. The best solution is to redefine how we look at quadras and types as a whole. But respectively the rest of the Betas would go into the other three clubs.

Also be aware that I already know Socionics is flawed and has tons of contradictions within the material, but don't take me so serious or think that I don't know the foundations of this stuff. I'm gradually looking at a better way to classify people and relationships I see, but it's not a for certain thing at all, just some light ideas that don't need to be defended so much. Nor do they need to be weighed against Classical Socionics like they're inferior, but I see them as potentially equal: just another, hopefully better, way to systemize people.

[munenori2]

No why would more than one type fit into a subclass? that would be more than 16 types. We already have, for instance, Beta NT (basically NiTi or TiNi) as one type in the quadra, I'm sure there are some here, yet the problem exists that there are too many within these types, "IEI" for instance, who differ in many ways. The best solution is to redefine how we look at quadras and types as a whole. But respectively the rest of the Betas would go into the other three clubs.

Also be aware that I already know Socionics is flawed and has tons of contradictions within the material, but don't take me so serious or think that I don't know the foundations of this stuff. I'm gradually looking at a better way to classify people and relationships I see, but it's not a for certain thing at all, just some light ideas that don't need to be defended so much. Nor do they need to be weighed against Classical Socionics like they're inferior, but I see them as potentially equal: just another, hopefully better, way to systemize people.

So, just to be clear, you're discarding the idea that temperament is either stable or relevant to personality type (see bolded)?

@ underlined: Then let's talk about the contradictions, maybe give a shot to reconciling them before throwing the whole thing into the garbage can. Also, no one's saying that these ideas are inferior simply because they're divergent, it's just nice to have a rationale for observations to rest upon rather than everyone having their own opinion and considering them equal to one another. (side note however: How can something be potentially equal, yet better than something else? I guess if you think it's as least as good, but probably superior in some way? heh, wordz.)

[EyeSeeCold]

No why would more than one type fit into a subclass? that would be more than 16 types. We already have, for instance, Beta NT (basically NiTi or TiNi) as one type in the quadra, I'm sure there are some here, yet the problem exists that there are too many within these types, "IEI" for instance, who differ in many ways. The best solution is to redefine how we look at quadras and types as a whole. But respectively the rest of the Betas would go into the other three clubs.

Also be aware that I already know Socionics is flawed and has tons of contradictions within the material, but don't take me so serious or think that I don't know the foundations of this stuff. I'm gradually looking at a better way to classify people and relationships I see, but it's not a for certain thing at all, just some light ideas that don't need to be defended so much. Nor do they need to be weighed against Classical Socionics like they're inferior, but I see them as potentially equal: just another, hopefully better, way to systemize people.

Your theory seems like the one I already proposed, I can''t really be sure. If it is, then I agree that there are 4 subClubs within a Quadra, and that explicating them would help in typing.